حدود استبعاد أدلة تقنيات الذكاء الاصطناعي الجنائية والعلمية المتحصلة بطرق غير مشروعة: دراسة مقارنة بين النظامين الأنجلوسكسوني واللاتيني

Abstract EN

The method of extracting forensic evidence differs from that of extracting scientific evidence.

the method for deriving forensic evidence is procedural in appearance, including inspection and vision, as the judicial investigation officer could traces of the crime, as well as witnesses’ testimonies and inferential clues.

as for the scientific evidence, it keeps pace with chemical and technological developments that did not exist in the past, as the role of modern technology is evident in discovering what the human senses fail to do.

as more scientific developments take place and modern technology produces more advanced devices, our abilities are sharpened to discover the hidden traces of forensic evidence, depending on the accuracy and sophistication of the devices.

if such means represent a real attraction for police officers and other parties concerned, due to the effectiveness and speed they achieve in completing the lengthy and complex criminal investigations, then, similarly they present a huge temptation to depart from the limits of legality and give priority to the element of effectiveness.

evidence that is not self-defective and which presents a strong evidence, is normally an acceptable evidence.

however, the rule of exclusion casts aside such evidence because it was to be derived through an illegal method, under the pretext of deterring police officers from committing violations.

this study is divided into two chapters, the first of which studies the procedural and jurisprudential treatment of the rule for excluding illegal forensic and scientific evidence.

the second handles the exceptions imposed on the rule of excluding unlawful criminal or scientific evidence.

the positions of comparative law, jurisprudence and judiciary differ towards the evaluation of illegally obtained evidence.

three different positions can be identifying with regard to such illegally obtained evidence.

the first position demands the application of the exclusion rule in a rigid manner, whereby, we exclude all illegally obtained evidence regardless to what is stipulated by the existing law and irrespective to the type of violation committed.

the second suggests ignoring the exclusion rule, provided that the illegally obtained evidence is essentially relevant to the case or the incident to be proven, regardless of the method through which it was obtained.

finally, the third position comes as a compromise solution that does not adopt a general rule for all cases, but rather arrives at practical solutions determined by the circumstances surrounding each case separately, so that the same “illegal” evidence can be accepted in cases and rejected in others.

it is a sort of striking a balance between the community’s need to convict criminals, on the one hand, and the societal interest requiring the protection of individuals against state authority abuse on the other hand.

it goes without saying that the application of the exclusion rule with regard to serious crimes may lead to impunity for perpetrators due to procedural erroneous consideration only.

perhaps such impunity sheds a negative impact on criminal justice, in the face of massive waves of contemporary criminality, such as treason, espionage, murder, robbery, kidnapping by organized groups and terrorist crimes...

etc.

this study reveals that the dominant feature of modern judicial and comparative criminal applications tends to reduce and shrink the rule of exclusion, and expand the acceptance of forensic and scientific evidence obtained by artificial intelligence techniques.

the rule is that what the police use in this regard must remain within the general framework of legitimacy in the collection of evidence.

we concluded that it has become essential to face the various complex problems, raised by the rule of exclusion of illegally obtained forensic evidence, within a broader framework, and by unconventional and personal means.

there is no doubt that the realization of all this requires unfamiliar solutions, a reluctance to engage in existing practices, and more rigorous and credible and honest self-scrutiny that are in tune with reality.

the path to the desired reform in the area in question is fraught with abundant dangers and caveats, but it is inevitable to tread along such a path if criminal justice is to maintain its respectful image and credibility before the public and legal professionals themselves.

with reference to the legislative, judicial and jurisprudential attempts to reduce these deficiencies, this could be achieved by expanding the acceptance of evidence obtained through some modern scientific methods, and the expansion of acceptance of evidence obtained through eavesdropping and electronic surveillance, as well as those obtained through search and seizure and evidence obtained by means of ambushing the accused.